The Idiot Thread

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.

Well, I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong.  But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?

Your questions are appropriate to the thread title TBH. Yes, obviously taxes are distributed as needed - when people pay taxes, those taxes are used where needed, including in the healthcare system. But in any case, everyone's illnesses cost more than motorcycle injuries do in the healthcare system, smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share in taxes to make up for any healthcare costs above and beyond what the average non-smoker might create for any number of reasons, so there is no need to discuss that point further. The point is that Canada has helmet laws for obvious reasons that I already explained, and NOBODY should ever be excluded from the law, especially not based on their religion. IMO.

Jason P

.

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system.  But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.

Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?

Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.

so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?

you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?

I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand. 

A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.

I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).

Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.

No system is perfect.  Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?

Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.

Well, I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong.  But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?

Your questions are appropriate to the thread title TBH. Yes, obviously taxes are distributed as needed - when people pay taxes, those taxes are used where needed, including in the healthcare system. But in any case, everyone's illnesses cost more than motorcycle injuries do in the healthcare system, smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share in taxes to make up for any healthcare costs above and beyond what the average non-smoker might create for any number of reasons, so there is no need to discuss that point further. The point is that Canada has helmet laws for obvious reasons that I already explained, and NOBODY should ever be excluded from the law, especially not based on their religion. IMO.

“TBH”, I’m starting to think that your being is appropriate to the thread title.  If you disagree with me, you are clearly in denial IMO.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

OPP use naloxone to save woman's life twice in 1 day
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/naloxone-1.5060823

After the first OD, she should have got a lecture...no more help for you.

You’re contradicting your earlier arguments here.

Yep. And what a gross argument too. Yeah, let's just stand there and watch someone die to teach them a lesson. WTF?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system.  But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.

Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?

Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.

so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?

you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?

I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand. 

A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.

I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).

Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.

No system is perfect.  Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?

Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.

So the non-smoker.  Fair enough.  Sounds to me like smoking should be outlawed in a universal healthcare system.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever addition medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases. Obviously that is not at all the case with motorcycle riders, and there is no comparison at all.

Well, I’m betting that the smokers and their smoking related illnesses raise healthcare costs ASTRONOMICALLY compared to people riding motorcycles as well, but I could be wrong.  But do any of those taxes get used to lessen the healthcare tax burden of non-smokers or people that make every effort to live healthy lives?

Your questions are appropriate to the thread title TBH. Yes, obviously taxes are distributed as needed - when people pay taxes, those taxes are used where needed, including in the healthcare system. But in any case, everyone's illnesses cost more than motorcycle injuries do in the healthcare system, smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share in taxes to make up for any healthcare costs above and beyond what the average non-smoker might create for any number of reasons, so there is no need to discuss that point further. The point is that Canada has helmet laws for obvious reasons that I already explained, and NOBODY should ever be excluded from the law, especially not based on their religion. IMO.

I'd like to see real stats on that. I have never heard that, and I have no idea how you'd even measure it. 

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

At least someone intelligent can understand, thanks for not being a condescending asshat!

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not. But smokers do pay a great deal more in taxes than non-smokers do to pay for whatever additional costs they may or may not create due to their smoking. It all works out. As I said.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system.  But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.

Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?

Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.

so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?

you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?

I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand. 

A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.

I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).

Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.

No system is perfect.  Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?

Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.

So the non-smoker.  Fair enough.  Sounds to me like smoking should be outlawed in a universal healthcare system.

unfortunately, you do that, and the black market blows up. you can't stop it. all you can do is tax it out the wazoo and hope that people wise up or simply have to quit because they can't afford it. the black market is already over the moon because of the taxation rates. making it illegal would make that much worse. 

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system.  But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.

Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?

Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.

so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?

you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?

I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand. 

A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.

I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).

Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.

No system is perfect.  Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?

Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.

So the non-smoker.  Fair enough.  Sounds to me like smoking should be outlawed in a universal healthcare system.

No, not necessarily the non-smoker.

If that's your conclusion, you're choosing to ignore everything I've said.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not. But smokers do pay a great deal more in taxes than non-smokers do to pay for whatever additional costs they may or may not create due to their smoking. It all works out. As I said.

of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death. 

and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out". 

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not.

Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc.  It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers.  If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke?  Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Meltdown99 said:

Well, thankfully you are not in charge of deciding who gets covered in the system.  But you have the perfect attitude to work for insurance, they like your thinking.

Why should I pay more (taxes, insurance, etc.) so idiots can do idiotic things without any accountability for their idiocy?

Keep defending the morons! That attitude would work perfect for Trudeau’s campaign team.

so a guy climbing a mountain should pay the medical expenses? what is the logic behind that but not for other expenses that could also be considered reckless?

you go hiking and mountain biking, right? if you get attacked by a bear should you be on the hook for all your injury-related expenses? after all, you knew the risk of heading into the wild. why should the tax payer have to pay for that then?

I'm just trying to understand the line you are drawing in the sand. 

A guy climbing a mountain should not pay for his medical expenses.

I agree with the slippery slope notion. I just get tired of people being stupid and/or abusing our health care system (smokers habitually seeing attendants for smoking related issues).

Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of those stupid things in my mind.

No system is perfect.  Another thought (hypothetical for only for argument sake), if a non-smoker and heavy smoker went into a hospital at the exact same time with signs of an impending fatal heart attack and there was only enough staff/time to save one...who should get saved?

Everyone in the medical system knows that the one who they try to save is the one with the best chance of survival. Period.

So the non-smoker.  Fair enough.  Sounds to me like smoking should be outlawed in a universal healthcare system.

No, not necessarily the non-smoker.

If that's your conclusion, you're choosing to ignore everything I've said.

Well, the last part is going to be correct from now on.  Officially ignored.

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not.

Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc.  It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers.  If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke?  Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?

I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??

I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies. 

Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not. But smokers do pay a great deal more in taxes than non-smokers do to pay for whatever additional costs they may or may not create due to their smoking. It all works out. As I said.

of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death. 

and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out". 

How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not. But smokers do pay a great deal more in taxes than non-smokers do to pay for whatever additional costs they may or may not create due to their smoking. It all works out. As I said.

of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death. 

and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out". 

How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.

the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely. 

national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not.

Yes, but smoking increases the medical expenses astronomically along the way, everything from treating heart disease, cancer, COPD, etc etc.  It is not fair to compare the healthcare costs of smokers to non-smokers.  If bike helmets should be required to save healthcare $, then should not people using the system be required not to smoke?  Did I dumb it down enough for your likings?

I didn't need anything dumbed down - not sure why you said that. Do you think I don't get what you're saying??

I've already addressed the rest of what you're saying here, again. I don't need to say it anymore. And why are you not talking about driving cars, drinking, eating sugar, etc etc etc etc? It's like you think only vegetarians who jog 5 miles everyday and drink 8 glasses of water and get 8 hours of sleep every night, and of course only those who also never do anything risky in their lives, EVER, should be the ones covered in a universal healthcare system, lol. And you keep ignoring the massive amount of extra taxes smokers pay here. I'm talking hundreds of thousands more, not just pennies. 

Also, smoking and wearing a helmet or a seatbelt aren't the same either. And FFS, I'm going to assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to figure out why not for themselves.

yes, if we disagree with you, we must not be intelligent.

alright. 

back to talking about idiots. lol

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jason P said:

You can smoke weed in Canada but get arrested for riding a bicycle without a helmet???  Do they give you citations for going swimming without inflatable arm floats? 

No. You get a ticket. But that guy was arrested for possession of stolen property. He drew attention because he had no helmet, which is illegal and you get fined for it, and then the cop discovered the bike was stolen, which is when the cop decided to arrest him.

Do you not have bike helmet laws where you are? I thought that was standard in most places.

Only bike helmet law in Ontario is for those under 18.  And it is rarely enforced.  I wonder how I got through my childhood and young years, no bike helmet, seatbelt laws were rarely enforced and the damn merry-go-round and those aluminum playground slides that were hot enough to cook breakfast on...lol

Well I didn't get through my childhood unscathed. I ran head first into a dump truck and cracked my head open. A helmet definitely would have helped! At that time, of course, wearing a helmet on a bike was unheard of unless you were professionally racing or something.

But anyway, I didn't know there was any place in Canada that didn't have helmet laws TBH. It just makes too much sense. It isn't about the rider or whether or not they hurt themselves. In a country with universal healthcare, the law is meant to protect all of us from astronomical medical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in.

Just curious, on this train of thought, does Canadian law allow people to smoke cigarettes?

That is obviously a really dumb question.

It is not the same at all. Everyone dies of something and/or gets sick. Almost everyone goes through lengthy diseases or declines that require a lot of medical treatment, just as smokers do. Also, smokers in Canada pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of taxes on those cigarettes, and more than make up for whatever additional medical care they may have to receive compared to non-smokers due to smoking related diseases, even though that difference can't even be fairly measured. Smoking and riding without a helmet aren't comparable in any way whatsoever. We already have a helmet law in Canada though, in order to prevent serious injury and death, and nobody should be exempt from laws, ever.

 I'm pretty sure the point of the question was actually to make a point. if the law is meant to protect us all from astronomical expenses for those who crash and bash their heads in, would it not then be meant to protect us from making the obviously stupid choice to intentionally suck poison in our lungs and be nearly guaranteed a slow and gruesome death? not only that, but PAYING for that poison at the same time?

I know what the point of the question was. The answer is that these things are not at all comparable for the reasons I already stated. And FWIW, it is not nearly guaranteed at all. Only 50% of smokers die from smoking-related diseases. And like I already said, we all die, and most of us will die a slow and fairly gruesome death - all of which cost a lot in the healthcare system - whether we smoke or not. But smokers do pay a great deal more in taxes than non-smokers do to pay for whatever additional costs they may or may not create due to their smoking. It all works out. As I said.

of course they're comparable. they are both completely idiot choices that may or may not result in death. 

and I'd again love to see these stats of how this "all works out". 

How would it not work out? Smokers pay a shitload in taxes to cover the difference, and they don't all even suffer from smoking related health issues - not even close actually. Plus everyone else also gets sick and injured in other ways for all kinds of other reasons, many of those reasons by choice as well. It's just common sense that it works out.

the most recent data I could find on tobacco tax revenue vs cancer economic burden is about 1:2. obviously, not all cancers are smoking related. But 2:1 is pretty big. no way it "works out" so nicely. 

national economics of revenue vs expenses, with so many variables, are never "common sense" or "just works out". sounds like a politician talking. lol

It does though.

You sound like someone who is super biased against smokers talking ... So I guess that all works out too.